存在多个侵权人的数人侵权案件在民事诉讼中一般需要适用某种类型的共同诉讼程序，但我国立法在共同诉讼程序类型的选择方面并不明确，尤其是《民法典》关于连带责任的规定和《人身损害赔偿解释》关于法院依职权追加被告的规定存在明显的冲突，这使得法院在司法实践中常常无所适从。有些学者从数人侵权案件在事实查明、因果关系认定等方面的特点讨论共同诉讼程序的选择，也有学者从数人侵权案件应当承担的连带责任或按份责任的角度出发讨论共同诉讼程序的选择，但远未达成共识。检索《民法典》实施以来的相关司法判决可以发现，法院尽管在数人侵权案件适用共同诉讼程序的选择上也没有达成共识，但对于作为案外人的侵权人的追加保持着相当的克制，并且在做出判决时尽量避免使未参加诉讼的侵权人承担责任，这些法院的处理方式更接近于普通共同诉讼程序。《民法典》中的数人侵权条款实际上并不是独立的请求权基础，只有结合侵权责任编的过错责任条款或无过错责任条款才能产生请求权，而不管是承担按份责任还是连带责任的数人侵权责任案件，其请求权数量均对应于侵权人的数量，即存在数个请求权。根据《民事诉讼法》的规定和我国目前通行的传统诉讼标的理论，存在数个请求权的数人侵权案件中存在数个同类标的，因而属于普通的共同诉讼。另外，以数人侵权案件动态推进的角度进行观察可以发现，必要共同诉讼程序无法兼容数人侵权案件的审理。同时，因为数人侵权案件在审理中存在相互转换和混合的可能，在不同类型的案件中选择适用共同诉讼程序的观点也无法立足。当然，在数人侵权案件中适用普通共同诉讼程序依然会遇到诸多障碍，其中包括《民法典》与《人身损害赔偿解释》的规范冲突、《民事诉讼法》第55条关于“当事人同意”的不当规定、未追加部分侵权人参与诉讼时案件事实的查明和可能出现的矛盾判决以及连带责任案件中的重复受偿等问题。不过在适用普通共同诉讼的前提下，这些问题并非无法解决，为此需要在法律解释以及相关诉讼制度的完善等方面做出努力。
Multiple tortfeasors lawsuits generally require a certain type of joint action in the civil procedure, but the choice of the type of joint action is not clear in our legislation. Especially there is an obvious conflict between the provision of joint liability in the Civil Code and the provision of addition of defendants by the courts in the Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation, which makes the courts often at a loss in judicial practice. Some scholars discuss the choice of the joint action from the characteristics of multiple tortfeasors lawsuits in terms of facts finding and causality determination. There are also scholars who discuss it from the perspective of proportionate liability or joint liability in multiple tortfeasors lawsuits. But it’s far from a consensus.Searching the relevant judicial judgments since the implementation of the Civil Code, it can be found that although the courts have not reached a consensus on the choice of type of joint action in multiple tortfeasors lawsuits, they maintain considerable restraint in the addition of tortfeasors who do not participate in the proceedings and try to avoid holding these tortfeasors liable. These courts have taken a measure more like common joint action. The clauses of multiple tortfeasors in the Civil Code is not actually an independent basis for the right of claim. they generate the right to claim only in conjunction with the clause on fault liability or the clause on no-fault liability. And regardless of whether it is a tort case of proportionate liability or joint liability, the number of rights of claim corresponds to the number of tortfeasors, that is, there are several rights of claim. According to the provision of the Civil Procedure Law and the traditional theory of object of action currently prevailing in our country, there are several objects of action in multiple tortfeasors lawsuits with several rights of claim, so it is an common joint action. In addition, from the perspective of the dynamic advancement of multiple tortfeasors lawsuits, it can be found that the necessary joint action cannot be compatible with the trial of the cases. At the same time, because of the possibility of mutual conversion and mixing in the trial of multiple tortfeasors lawsuits, the view of choosing to apply the joint action in different types of cases cannot stand.Of course, there are still many obstacles to applying common joint action in multiple tortfeasors lawsuits, including the normative conflict between the Civil Code and the Interpretation of Personal Injury Compensation, the improper set of "consent of the parties" in Article 55 of Civil Procedure Law, facts finding of the case and possible conflicting judgments when some tortfeasors are not involved in a lawsuit, and repeated compensation in joint liability cases, etc. However, under the premise of applying common joint action, these problems are not insoluble. To this end, efforts should be made in legal interpretation and the improvement of relevant litigation systems.
